-LRB- CNN -RRB- -- Fearing that flocks of unmanned aircraft might soon traverse U.S. skies , the Federal Aviation Administration on Friday quickly appealed a judge 's ruling that the agency does not have the authority to regulate commercial drones .

The case involves Raphael Pirker , a drone enthusiast fined $ 10,000 by the FAA for using his 56-inch foam glider to take promotional videos of the University of Virginia Medical Center .

The FAA said Pirker 's flight ran afoul of its strict rules governing the commercial use of drones .

On Friday , less than 24 hours after losing its case , the FAA said it was appealing the decision by Patrick Geraghty , an administrative law judge with the National Transportation Safety Board .

`` The agency is concerned that this decision could impact ... the safety of people and property on the ground , '' the FAA said in a statement .

Geraghty said FAA regulations approved for manned aircraft did not apply to unmanned aircraft any more than they applied to paper airplanes or balsa wood planes .

Pirker 's attorney , Brendan Schulman , called it `` a tremendously significant decision for model aircraft and commercial drone operators . ''

`` As a general matter , the decision finds that the FAA 's 2007 policy statement banning the commercial use of model aircraft is not enforceable . It would appear to me to have a very significant impact on other operators , '' Schulman said .

But the decision confounded the FAA , which as recently as last week had publicized its restrictions on commercial use of drones .

In a press release headlined `` Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft , '' it stressed that UAS enthusiasts could not use drones for commercial purposes .

`` A commercial flight requires a certified aircraft , a licensed pilot and operating approval . To date , only one operation has met these criteria , using Insitu 's ScanEagle , and authorization was limited to the Arctic , '' the FAA 's Busting Myths release said .

`` There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations , '' the FAA continued . `` Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft-manned or unmanned-in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval . ''

The flight that got Pirker in trouble occurred October 17 , 2011 , when he remotely piloted a $ 130 RiteWing Zephyr II aircraft at the campus medical center .

The FAA investigated , and the following April it proposed a $ 10,000 civil penalty , saying that Pirker operated the plane `` in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another . ''

Pirker operated the aircraft within about 50 feet of numerous individuals , about 20 feet of a crowded street , and within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at UVA , the FAA alleged . One person had to take `` evasive measures '' to avoid being struck by the aircraft , the agency said .

Pirker appealed the case to the NTSB , where the case went before Geraghty . The FAA is appealing the matter to the full safety board .

@highlight

Raphael Pirker remotely piloted a model plane for commercial purposes

@highlight

The FAA said he needed to get authorization beforehand

@highlight

But federal administrative judge sides with pilot , dumps fine

@highlight

FAA appealed , saying it fears the decision could impact safety